Re: Sanctuary Gill debate

[Richard Gill]

PS, this is not just my criticism. He’s heard it from numerous others. In particular, from all active participants of the Google Group

Sent from my iPad

On 28 Jan 2026, at 13:23, Dieks, D.G.B.J. (Dennis) <d.d...@uu.nl> wrote:



Hi Richard,

Perhaps you already know that in the meantime I accepted Bryan's suggestion to look at a brief summary of his position. He sent it late last night, but I had no time and only had a brief look at the abstract.  I saw the two channels talk and Bell's supposed assumption of one channel and suspected something along the lines you just wrote. Makes it more complicated in a sense,  because he heard your criticism a thousand times... So, I will probably be another of those disappointing fools that just cannot see the obvious. 

Perhaps I will read his little paper later today or tonight. 

Sorry to hear about your wife! My own wife is 70 and has many minor medical complaints that make life, traveling, etc more complicated. I am 76 myself but cannot complain. I am on a small committee with the physicist Chris Korthals Altes, he is 86 or87, and seems to know the secret of the fountain of youth. I am blown away by his energy and enthusiasm. So there's hope. 

Cheers,  Dennis 

Verzonden vanaf Outlook voor Android

---

From: Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2026 11:41:52 AM
To: Dieks, D.G.B.J. (Dennis) <d.d...@uu.nl>
Subject: Re: Sanctuary Gill debate

 

U ontvangt niet vaak e-mail van gill...@gmail.com. Ontdek waarom dit belangrijk is

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Utrecht University. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

PS I’m happy (in confidence) to tell you my view. Bryan thinks there are two components to spin. He calls them “spin” and “helicity”. He says Bell does not apply because there are two “channels”, not one. He says “Bell assumed one channel”. 

But Bell made no assumptions whatsoever about the “channels” between source and the two measurement stations. He assumed binary *outcomes*.

Extensions of Bell’s theorem exist taking care of more more *output* channels. Bryan never talks about experiments.

In Bell’s theorem the hidden variable space could be a Cartesian product of several components, with arbitrary joint probability distribution.

Bryan’s criticisms are completely unfounded.

He goes on to make the following argument. S = 2.8 = 2 + 0.8.

There exists a LHV for S = 2 and a LHV for S = 0.8 with correlation functions which add up to the negative cosine. Therefore Bell’s theorem is false. The QM correlations are local. No entanglement, no mystery.

Privately I say that he’s nuts.

He now has several published papers with this nonsense. Nobody is taking any notice of them but Bryan is desperate for recognition. He is quite learned and pretty intelligent but with a huge blind spot regarding logic and mathematical abstraction. He was a very successful as professor of physical chemistry at a very decent university. 

My opinions are well known and publicly accessible in internet fora, pub peer, etc

Sent from my iPad

On 27 Jan 2026, at 16:53, Dieks, D.G.B.J. (Dennis) <d.d...@uu.nl> wrote:



Hi Richard,

Good to hear from you! Yes, I am fine although very busy (much grant review work, two book reviews waiting, and two book chapters that I promised). I received the mail from Bryan and you, and like the others I am reluctant to become a party in this debate---and moreover I have no time for this.  I was hesitating about whether to answer at all, because I did not want to argue in any way about the matter (which would provoke replies...).  And then, after the weekend, it slipped my mind. '😚

I had contact with Bryan in the past, and I did not think that his arguments made sense. I saw the latest that you wrote about this on Facebook, about the mathematics of Bell's theorem, and I agree with that of course.  But I know from experience that simple mathematics and logic do not help in cases like this.

So sorry, I will not be a jury member. How are you doing?

Very best,

Dennis

---

Van: Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>
Verzonden: dinsdag 27 januari 2026 07:13
Aan: Dieks, D.G.B.J. (Dennis) <d.d...@uu.nl>
Onderwerp: Sanctuary Gill debate

 

[U ontvang niet vaak e-mail van gill...@gmail.com. Meer informatie over waarom dit belangrijk is, vindt u op https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification]

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Utrecht University. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.


Dear Dennis

Niet are you? I hope you’re well.

Did you receive the email from Bryan Sanctuary concerning a formal private debate between him and me? I’m happy to give you more background if you like.

Richard

Sent from my iPad